Virtualization Disallowed For Vista Home 369
Maxx writes to mention a ZDNet article about Microsoft's dictum on Vista as a virtual machine. The software giant has declared that home versions of their upcoming OS may not be run virtually, because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.' From the article: "'Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security,' says Gartner analyst Michael Silver. 'The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300 for Windows Vista Business or US$399 for Windows Ultimate, instead of US$200 for Home Basic or US$239 for Home Premium,' Silver suggested."
B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:B.S. (Score:5, Interesting)
And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA. I would have to check these conditions, but I would be surprised would that appear there, too.
Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (Score:5, Interesting)
So just have your legal department contact MS and work through the licensing that will allow you to do this.
What? You don't have a legal department, and you can't afford to hire a law firm for something as trivial as setting up a virtual machine.
Gee, I guess that means that you won't be able to test the software you are writing against the Vista HOME platform in a cost effective manner. So you will either have to get out of that business, or release substandard software for that platform.
Microsoft's rule change will result in either increasing your costs, or decreasing your quality of product. either way they are reducing your ability to effectively compete with them in the free market. They are undercutting competition by manipulating the legal rules, as opposed to using direct head to head competition in the free market. Your product may not even compete directly with any of their existing products, but you still form a potential threat. You may be the next Linus Torvalds or David Heinemeier Hansson.
Reducing competition helps to protect their monopoly, or so they believe.
Of course, you may want to contact a lawyer that specializes in Class Action lawsuits. Get them to think of all of the web developers they can represent who are have their product's cost effectiveness reduced by this anti-competitive move from a convicted monopolist who is known to settle lawsuits quickly out of Court. Heck, you could make some law firm rich, and maybe even see a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars in settlement money!
Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (Score:4, Funny)
Strange how I've never needed one of those for any other OS I have created a VM for in the past.
Which repository do I need to add to get a legal department?
Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (Score:5, Informative)
EULAs are 100% worthless and unenforcable.
Well at least in Denmark and I suspect much of the EU.
You see we have a set of restrictions on confusing marketing, you can't sell something and then later try to impose extra limitations on the buyer.
If MS wants to make the EULA assholery binding then they will have to present the terms BEFORE the sale takes place otherwise we are free to ignore it completely.
The same is true for language, if the EULA is written in english then it's 100% non-binding.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this restriction of home users a legal or a technological one? EULA's are not worth the electrons it takes to display them anyway. IF MS sells any packaged version of VISTA, and I buy a copy, I can legally do with it whatever I want, consistent with COPYRIGHT laws. I can flush it down the toilet, install it on my washer or on a virtual machine.
If it is a technological restriction, does
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why bother? An XP Home licence is not worth the paper it's printed on for enterprise consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's nice for you. Many of us can't afford the £567.49 per annum than an MSDN Operating Systems subscription costs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Microsoft said developers who obtain Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Home Premium through their MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) subscription may use those programs within a virtual machine to assist them in designing, developing, testing and demonstrating their programs."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You've bought a license to use a product, not the product itself, apparently. The product is a disk. You can do whatever you like with that until you stick it in a computer, then the license kicks in.
Re:B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
More laws will not help. Microsoft can do whatever the hell they want with their own software and licensing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, as a security feature, it would be nice if their magical "I'm in a VM" detector would pop up a warning, to prevent those virtualization attacks you hear about every so often where a rootkit takes over hypervisor capabilities.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looking at an Microsoft EULA you'll see the following text:
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:B.S. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's about time MS thought of the children I say.
Either that or it's one of the lamest excuses ever, I'm not completely sure yet.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is why I allow my friends to run windows. They ask me, "why do you run linux? it's so hard." And all I can say is that I notice the inherent problems with Windows, and they bother me more that the inherent problems in Linux. That doesn't mean that everyone should use Linux, because as people point out, it's 'hard.'
Directly relating to what you're sa
Re:B.S. (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft is feeling the heat from one of their oldest enemies. Leopard is a Vista-killer, and now that a large slice of the Macintosh population is MacIntel they are fearful that MacIntel will poach more customers from their base.
Re:B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Microsoft announces iTunes will be disabled on all copies of Vista, because it's a security risk that users doesn't understand."
(wow, as I wrote that, I got a creepy feeling.. that statement makes me think of all the trash that's come out of whitehouse press releases by Tony Snow)
Er? (Score:3, Funny)
Which makes about as much sense as buying a more expensive copy of Windows for the coolness factor... A route their MS spokesperson maybe should've gone instead. Just imagine the
Re:Er? (Score:4, Funny)
Or virtually laid, at any rate...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Testing on VMs is massively easier than the old days of separate physical test machines with multi-boot, and re-installing / re-imaging to get back to a clean state after each test.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This overlooks that plenty of companies need to _test_ on home edition as that may be (one) target environment.
For any company that _needs_ virtualisation for that purpose, the additional cost of an appropriate Vista licence is like pissing in the ocean.
Re:Home User, Not the Companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read his comment again:
He's talking about companies that sell software to people running Vista Home.
And real companies who build software for windows. (Score:5, Informative)
Because choice is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-Apple...again (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so prevent the runaway success that Parallels has become for all the intel mac users. By putting this in the license, and probably with some flimsy second-rate "protection" they make the Parallels be legally forced to play their little game or get a DMCA suit. That's the rub here...Microsoft can FORCE the issue and use police officers if they want. They want customers buying the "upgraded" versions. The worst possible thing that can happen is that developers will make extra sure their products work with Home for all the "Apple" users... and I think Microsoft is trying to put applications into requiring the higher version of windows to even RUN. If all the Apple users make home the default version Microsoft can't continue to shake businesses down.
I think you mean... (Score:3, Funny)
I think you meant to type Microsoft true motto:
"Where do you think you're going today?"
Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Well, neither is Vista probably.....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You say this, and yet you do not back up your argument. Microsoft asserts that commercial virtualization systems are not mature enough for broad use, yet such systems have had far more real world use than Vista has had. If virtualization is immature, then by surely the same standards Vista must be too.
One could equally claim that you're conforming with anti-
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember what true hubris is.
Their product [microsoft.com] is immature... and not ready for prime time... therefore all others must be even worse off.
Because MS knows their product is allways "best of class".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My system of moderation generally has me locate an interesting thread, and burn 3 or so mod points on all of the interesting posts in that thread, regardless of which side of the argument the poster is on. Must be why I didn't have mod points for a year or so, and only recently started getting them again. But anyhow, I find it is the best way for me to be fair.
Why? (Score:2)
But it IS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people here in /. (including me, sometimes) mod funny comments as insightful, especially if the comment is already negatively moderated (as offtopic, for instance). This is because a "+1, funny" won't increment the karma of the poster, but a "-1, offtopic" will decrement it. So, these moderations are done to give a funny poster a premium. I, personally, think that to fix this, "funny" mods should increment the poster's karma...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Finally Microsoft admints (Score:5, Funny)
It's good that finally MS admitted running their OS has risks.
this makes my blood boil (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> snapshot... hey, we'd probably have a lot less bot nets out there ey?
They'd have a lot fewer apps installed on their system too.
Re:this makes my blood boil (Score:5, Interesting)
Could this be what Microsoft are really afraid of?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont understand, what risks?
Re:Understanding (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
The same risks Microsoft tried to avoid by making it impossible to use WinXP home as a server: the risk of no one buying the "enterprisey" version of their OS and thus not shelving an extra 200$ per seat.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What risks indeed.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I note that they said: 'risks'... plural. Now, I won't pretend I know all of the risks Microsoft sees but the paranoid tin-foil-hat part of me would say that one of those risks is that they don't want OS.X and Linux users running Vista in a VM thus circumventing some of Microsoft's barriers, carefully crafted to prevent OS migration. My less paranoid side tells me they are simply trying to weasel out of having to provide tech support for (how many?) millions of users running Vista Home in a VM. If one calls the help center all they have to do is fall back on the old ' Well you see sir it's like this. If you read the EULA that came with your copy of Windows Vista Home edition you will see that....." routine. It will certainly be interesting to see if Vista Home will actually refuse to boot in a VM or whether this is only a cost limiting exercise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you only have to worry about this if the main OS is captured, which is a lot more likely with something that's tied down badly. People in this thread are treating VMware like a possible security solution...what if it isn't ready for that yet?
Of course, I can't help but think that "Virtual Machines aren't ready" is MS's way of saying, "Our virtual machine produ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of a sudden, a security hole in Vista and in VMWare is an exploit in a Linux VM.
All OSes running on the same box are equally secure if there's an exploit in the VM management software.
That's only one issue. The other is in the idea that a VM is a sandbox - which it should be. If it is, then you can go ahead and give an untrusted user such a box, and if they screw it up, then they're the only ones who suffer. Obviously thi
Re:Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
The risk of the user circumventing DRM. In a virtual machine, your "sound board" may be sending everything played right to a
Re: (Score:2)
Or, ya know.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I thought Windows came preinstalled with almost every new PC sold these days. It's usually hard to find vendors that are willing to sell you an OS-less machine, at least where I live (Iceland).
Anyway, people do pay quite a lot for the OEM licenses. It's just that most of them don't realize that they are paying for them. For them, Windows comes 'free' with the computer. If people were made more aware of the fact that they're paying a bunch of money for a single, CD-less copy of Windows that can't be u
Re: (Score:2)
The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300 (Score:5, Funny)
"So you can't use virtualization, unless you can..ahem...demonstrate your understanding"
"Demonstrate my understanding? How would I do that?"
"Well...everything has its price. If you were to, shall we say, *invest* in some understanding, then I could let you use it"
"Ah - I understand. Is this enough of a demonstration?"
(Counting.."Yes, you appear to be sufficiently qualified" (flicks switch)
It's all about the revenue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Foundering MS Stocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the Novell deal, the attempted RH deal and other recent MS comments regarding Linux, I am beginning to buy into this whole "MS might be in trouble" arguement. I read about six months ago some issues with its market cap that point to a company not as financially secure as many people believe.
Sounds like bullshit... (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit on both counts.
First, technology being immature has never stopped Microsoft before from selling it. And for protecting the consumer, a warning in the EULA would suffice. As in "Microsoft does not guarantee for correct function in a virtual environment". An outright prohibition points to other motives.
Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.
No, but at least Microsoft will be able to sue the clueless user who became infected, thus persuading them to choose a more robust OS next time around.
Re: (Score:2)
Aiming at the foot... (Score:3, Interesting)
Foolish, however. In a VM, for demos, etc... I want as few features as possible using up as little RAM as I can. That way the applications I'm running have more resources. I already use Nlite to trim Win2k and Win2003 down substantially. Having something that has the 'ultimate' set of features OOTB is not a good thing. Thank goodness I spend more time on the server side rather than client - what a mess for those testing thick client applications.
Control the Base, Control the Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft seem to be going for a similar strategy, they want Windows always to be the base. Linux as a Virtual Machine on Microsoft is fine, but Microsoft as a virtual machine is not allowed.
If Windows is the base then they can keep their own products in the picture through bundling, dodgy secret agreements, blackmail and so on.
If they lose the base, then they actually have to compete as equals, and Microsoft does not do competition .
Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Even more aggressive Windows Genuine Advantage snooping/phoning home. I haven't bothered to pirate your OS yet, if I pass initial activation you can get off my ass. I know my ass is close to m wallet so I see your motives.
-Exceedingly aggressive DRM built into WMP11. Just a thought, consider the consumer and not your media conglomerate buddies at mega-corp once in a while. You tell me to trust you with my digital life but you won't trust me?
-You insist that I am too dumb to run my PC; far too many processes are hidden/poorly explained or locked out of my control. Now you tell me I'm not smart enough to handle virtualization?
I've never been one to believe MS is some kind of innovation power house, but Vista disappoints on almost every level. I've never entirely trusted a Windows OS, but now my OS doesn't trust me. Linux makes a pretty adequate desktop these days and for those who want a totally trouble free experience OS X is still far more consumer friendly than Vista. True that iTunes does present some DRM issues, but they aren't that hard to subvert and the vast majority of files generated on/by OS X and associated applications are widely supported formats. It will be easy to recommend alternatives for the next couple years...
Re: (Score:2)
-Don't use WMP11/WMA - no-one's forcing you to.
-No more than any other version of Windows. That's the Windows philosophy; simplicity. If that's not your cup of tea then fine, but you the go on to endorse OSX which takes the same approach as Windows in that the user doesn't need to 'see under the hood' - as long as it works.
You want a real reason not to upgrade? Try:
-Windows XP is very stable, and
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, it's activation that's by far the biggest killer - not activating won't let you log-in ultimately. Failing WGA ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Value Pricing (Score:2)
hmmmbullshitmm (Score:2, Informative)
I believe that the reason for doing this is quite simple... A lot of companies are moving towards virtualisation - Microsoft will make sure that the cheapest option is to use an MS Operating system as the host OS.
And this is an issue why? (Score:2)
By that time I'll be able to find fixes for the bugs thru google. And best of all, it won't cost me anything,
Mostly I use linux but suspect that I really should get past the cups problems by learning how to network machines and use the windows box for a print server. Now there is an idea, network a windows tossed out box for the shortcommings of linux.
So is there such a hack t
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.
"We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."
Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.
Remote desktop... (Score:2, Informative)
The only versions (that you can buy) that include remote desktop (also known as terminal services) are Business and Ultimate. So, just for a single feature that I require I have to fork over a significantly larger sum than I did for XP Professional.
So, if I say wanted some of the features of the normal desktop versions of Vista then i'd have to get Ultimate. For the most part though I think I can do pretty much everything un
Translation.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."
Is anyone really surprised? Any market Microsoft cannot dominate they attempt to squash.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."
Your argument is flawed, as some versions of Vista can still be run in virtualisation.
This is nothing more than price discrimination. A completely normal - indeed, fundamental - business practice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm...
You must have missed the part where I said "home market".
You see, like many computing trends, virtualization is beginning to make inroads in the home market from the Enterprise market. It started among IT types wanting to run several OSes but not wanting the complication of a dual-boot setup. Apple has greatly helped it along with it's "Parallels" software, and VMWare has a version of it's free VMWare Player for OS
Risks? (Score:2)
by license or force? (Score:2)
Strange figures (Score:3, Interesting)
And the total for SQL Server 2000 is twice that for SQL Server 2005 on the same version of Windows. Does upgrading a database really make that much difference? How?
Perhaps there are some clues in the document that you can download from Microsoft. This reveals that 100% of the linux servers were hosting dynamic web sites, but 50% of the Windows servers were hosting static web sites. That must make a big reduction in the Windows support costs. And there were 10 times more Windows servers than Linux servers, so the costs of Linux-trained admins were spread amongst fewer servers, making them seem more expensive per server.
My guess is that this study was done at a Windows-only shop that had been forced to install a few Linux servers for tasks that were beyong the capabilities of Windows, and was therefore spending a disproportionate amount of money supporting a few specialist Linux boxes.
looks familiar (Score:3, Insightful)
This just reminds me of the infamous quote:
This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.
Once again Microsoft's attitude is an insult to its customers intelligence. Thank you Microsoft for letting us know that we are morons.
There are more restrictions (Score:4, Informative)
Not only virtualisation is restricted:
Well, of course! (Score:3, Interesting)
Be reasonable!
Pay $200 more and you will understand the risks? (Score:2, Insightful)
Familiar? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget terrorism and kiddy pron!
The risk involved (Score:2)
A VM is by default at the mercy of its host. For the host, the VM is a normal program that can be handled in any way the host deems appropriate. You have full access to its memory, no matter how protected the OS in the VM wants it to be. You have full control over the drivers it loads, you have absolute powe
Nonsense... (Score:3, Insightful)
Give 'em a VPC of their own that can't have any data saved to it on reboot, and presto! you've created a way that helps keep the host OS reasonably secure from malware.
I know a lot of parents that would understand that concept.
Prohibiting this technology in the name of safety just doesn't make sense.
This to me sounds like the shell game. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh you need A B and C.... Find the version get the version, 20 gets you one, but that's not good enough, 40 gets you two but no no no. 100 gets you them all but you feel like fool, and choose!
Of course the prices are more like 100 to get the first. Seriously though Microsoft can become a great company with three steps.
1. Get rid of all the versions, give 2 versions, one for corporate one for home, both versions are fully unlocked.
2. Drop the prices, 100 for the home, 200 for the corporate, you're already doing OEM around that price, however by doing this people with XP will buy it rather then sticking around with the old version.
3. Drop the DRM, drop the litigation, and make sure the customer comes first ALWAYS. ALWAYS, A customer wants to change something and they do it, don't get pissed. If they break your system and do something illegal get pissed, but just because they changed the system so it says "microsoft sucks" How does that hurt you?
IF you do all three of those things any company can grow and become respected. Of course Microsoft is so caught up in pleasing Hollywood, they are playing the "PS3" game, and we can see what a great machine the PS3 after focusing so much on the nextgen DVD wars. They are an OS, not a home media center, not a Gaming platform, an Operating system, it should be useful as all the stuff, but a focus on one hurts all the rest...
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know the mechanism by which an OS can detect if it is running virtualised?
detect running virtualized (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory, you can't, but many virtual machine managers (VMMs) leave apparent traces. For example, it allows screen drawing to be accelerated via a trap mechanism, which essentially lets a guest OS talk to the VMM. VMMs also provide CPUID, hard drive, and PCI device identification that reveal the fact that these devices are virtual. These measures allow you to detect a number of selected VMMs.
In theory, there is (Score:2)
You can technically use it in VM, as long as you don't go online. As soon as you do, the system can contact MS and determine that you're not supposed to run on the hardware you're running on. In theory, this could even be built into the system itself (so that it refuses to run on virtual hardware).
There are also a few ways